A mining lease cannot be revoked without giving an opportunity of hearing to the lessee.

1. - On 2.4.73 the petitioner applied under rule 8 of the Rajasthan (Minor Mineral Concession) Rules, 1959 hereinafter to be called "the Rules", for grant of a licence in a village Tamkoli, Tehsil Karauli in block No. 4 for mining of sand stone and Khanda. This application of the petitioner was granted under rule 11 of the Rules by the order of the Mining Engineer dated 30.1.74 (Ex.1). The amount of the lease money was Rs. 143/2/- and the lease period was for a period of five years. The petitioner alleges that in pursuance of the grant of the lease be deposited various amounts like Rs. 3578/- as deed rent and Rs. 3600/- as security. The deposit of this amount is not disputed by the respondents though it is stated that the petitioner deposited this amount at his own sweet will. It is however admitted that some dispute arose regarding the area that was leased to the petitioner and some other party and the petitioner was asked by the respondents to await till the decision of this dispute. In the meanwhile the respondent department also received further offer for this piece of mining lease ranging from Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 27,000/-. The former was given by one Prabhudayal. The petitioner's case further is that he received certain letters dated 23.3.74 asking him to see the Mining Engineer on 30.3.74 but received by him on 7.4.74. Similar is said to be the incongruity in the further letter written by the Mining Engineer. A letter of 1st July, 1974 required the petitioner to appear before him on 6.7.74 when the letter was received on 12.7.74. This part of course is denied in the reply where it is maintained that the petitioner did receive the letters but did not choose to another for the reasons best known to him. The further stand taken by their respondents is that on receipt of the offer of Rs.20,000/- by Mr. Jagannath, the Director of Mines addressed a letter to the petitioner on 19.9.74 asking him whether he was prepared to accept the lease on this amount as an annual dead rent but that the petitioner refused to accept the same and the letter came back unserved. It is also stated that in the meanwhile the Director of Mines also decided that the area should be auctioned and a notification to this effect was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra of 5th September, 1974. This area was later on auctioned in open auction on 7.10.74 and fresh bid of Rs.50,100/-. The petitioner had earlier to that written to the respondents on 5.10.74 pointing out that the auction should not take place as according to him he had already been sanctioned this lease. As however the auction proceeded as scheduled the petitioner came to this court challenging the action of the respondent in refusing to execute the lease deed in his favour and also the auction held instead.

2. From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that there is a serious controversy on the point as to where the fault lies. The petitioner maintains that after the lease had been sanctioned in his favour he had continuously asked the respondents give possession of the land to him and to execute the lease deed but that the respondents wrongly and illegally refused to do so. The case of the respondents however is that the petitioner was asked a number of times to appear before the Mining Engineer but that he consistently refused to do so. It is further stated by the respondents that in spite of the conduct of the petitioner the Director of Mines showed consideration to the petitioner by offering to sanction the said area at an annual dead rent of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the petitioner (the amount for which one Prabhu Dayal had given the offer) but the grievance of the respondents is that this letter was even refused to be accepted by the petitioner. However, all, this is denied by the petitioner obviously it is not possible for this Court in these proceedings to give a finding on these disputed questions of fact and it is also unnecessary for me to decide all these disputed facts.

3.